Artificial Birth Contol and IVF (why I am opposed to both)
People have children even after IUDs, Tubes tied, vasectomies, etc. It's rare, but they do happen.
<br />
<br />Um, not so very rare when you happen to be the one 37 weeks pregnant and the IUD is still present.
<br />
<br />Fact is, I didn't respond to this earlier because frankly its just insulting and arrogant to start a thread like this especially on a sight like this.
<br />
<br />The so-called abortifacient effect of hormonal birth control is nothing but a theoritical possibility. It is niether proven nor disproven, despite repeated studies to try and prove it. And, it ONLY applies to hormonal birth control methods.
<br />
<br />In hormonal birth control methods, there are 3 mechanisms of action which prevent pregnancy. First and foremost, the hormones prevent ovulation. Yes, it is known that break through ovulation does occur in some women, some percentage of the time. But, there are 2 secondary actions that prevent pregnancy. Hormonal birth control changes the mucous of the cervix to make it inhospitable to sperm. Gee, CF women should be aware of what this impact can cause, as this is the #1 reason CF women find themselves infertile and require outside assistance if they want to be pregnant. Obviously, the mucousal chanages can be a VERY powerful pregnancy prevention all on its own. The third and last mechanism of action is that the hormones cause the uterine lining to not support implantation.
<br />
<br />The ONLY way for the abortifacient effect to occur is that the hormones must fail entirely to prevent ovulation, and at the same time must fail to prevent the mucousal changes...but NOT fail in changing the uterine lining to prevent implantation. The reality is that if the hormones are going to fail, they are most commonly going to catostrophically fall...or all THREE methods will fail and not merely one.
<br />
<br />I, for one, don't happen to buy into the abortifacient theory. I've seen far, far too many women who achieved actual pregnancy while using hormonal methods. And, as I already pointed out, every study that has been conducted has shown that if hormones are going to fall, they are going to catostrophically fail. You aren't going to be facing the least effective impact working but the 2 more potent ones not working to achieve the abortifacient effect in the first place.
<br />
<br />And, as for the position taken against IUDs, nonsense. Clearly, the sources you started out quoting didn't take very long to read even ONE research article on copper IUDs. Copper IUDs do not change mucousal lining. They also rarely cause inflammation in the uterine lining to prevent implantation. Rather, copper is the most potent and oldest spermicidal agent known to mankind. Copper IUDs work by having a directly spermicidal impact, nothing more and nothing less. If the spermicidal agent fails, you get....ME, 37 weeks pregnant. If it works, then you don't get pregnant.
<br />
<br />Of all the methods you cite, the most likely to have an abortifacient effect is the Progesterone IUD (Mirena). Yes, its true that progesterone only birth control can and does a significantly lesser job of preventing ovulation. What it fails to mention is that it is the administration of that hormone that makes the Mirena so highly effective. There's no user error, and low doses of the hormones directly bath the very organs which need it to prevent pregnancy. Its highly effective and rarely believed to cause ovulation to even occur, which would set the scene for the abortifacient scenario.
<br />
<br />The abortifacient effect is something the Catholic Church and many pro-life movements have espoused to try and scare women into not preventing pregnancy. I'm not Catholic. And, I definitely think you are losing sight of your cause if you're going to harp upon the abortifacient theory rather than talking about ways to reduce the need for abortions in the first place.
<br />
<br />But, its not surprising that we can go from this stance to something derrogatory about Infertility treatments. Afterall, the REAL underlying message is that we must leave all conception and all life in the hands of God and God alone. This is, afterall, exactly what the Catholic Church officially promotes. It is NOT, however, what the Orthodox Church promotes...you know, the other EIGHT Patriarchs. All I can truly say is that there is a reason, imo, that the other Patriarchs of the church took the position that Rome was merely first among equals. And, I think if you will look at the history of the FULL church, you will find a greater position towards charity and mercy for individual circumstances than merely the official positional paper put out by the Catholic Church this century.
<br />
<br />If a woman were suffering from Diabetes, we would not dream of telling her she should leave her blood sugar levels in the hands of God alone. If her thyroid quit working properly, we would not expect her to trust God to regulate her hormones properly. If her heart were beating irregularily, we would not deny her digoxin or a defibrillator because we would be denying God the opportunity to decide how long her life is meant to be for her. We certainly don't ask a CF patient to forgo their treatments or their pancreatic enzymes so that God can determine when and how they should die. Infertility is a sign of a body not working right. It is not at all unreasonable to seek medical treatment for a medical problem.
<br />
<br />So, rather than viewing a woman's reproductive health as something uniquely regulated by other's opinions, perhaps we should see it as something she needs to address between herself, her doctor and her spiritual advisor....just as we would any other function of her body.
